On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 12:00 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 09:08 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 23:39 -0700, Nathan Kinder wrote:
> > > On 05/02/2013 10:27 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > > > All issues fixed unless noted below... The attached patches are tested
> > > > to work.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:39 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> - (nit) slapi_ch_malloc/slapi_ch_strdup are not checked for failure
> > > >> (although I know slapi_ch_malloc() currently just aborts on failure, I
> > > >> think that is plain wrong which is why I would prefer using
> > > >> malloc/strdup, but well, I guess this is not something I am going to
> > > >> care too much about for now).
> > > > Not fixed.
> > > >
> > > >> - Is the logic with auth_type_used correct ?
> > > >> At least the name of the variable sounds misleading, because you set it
> > > >> only if the authentication was successful but not set if it was 'used'
> > > >> but was unsuccessful. Made me look at it multiple times to reconstuct
> > > >> the logic. The var name could be better, however I also want a comment
> > > >> that explain exactly how we are going to manage authentication and
> > > >> fallbacks here as that logic is critical and is useful for anyone that
> > > >> is going to have to change this code later in order not to break it.
> > > > The variable is now gone. I re-factored the section to make the logic
> > > > clearer and put a nice big comment up top.
> > > >
> > > >> - General question: how does this PRE_BIND plugin interact with
> > > >> ipapwd_pre_bind() in the ipa-pwd-extop() plugin ?
> > > >> Are you going to cause that plugin not to run by returning a result
> > > >> directly in this function ?
> > > >> Or is this plugin configured to run only after the previous one went
> > > >> through ?
> > > >> I ask because I do not see any ordering information in the cn=config
> > > >> plugin configuration so it is not immediately clear to me.
> > > > That is a good question for Nathan since he wrote this part of the
> > > > code...
> > > We would need to set the precedence if you want a predictable/guaranteed
> > > execution order. If a pre-BIND plug-in callback returns non-zero (which
> > > you should do when the plug-in sends the result to the client directly),
> > > it will cause other pre-bind plug-ins to not be called. This is
> > > actually how all pre-op plug-ins work. If a pre-op callback returns an
> > > error, we don't call the rest of the pre-op plug-ins in the list.
> > Ok, but this does not answer my question.
> > We definitely need to *always* run our other preop plugin as we do
> > sanity checks like verifying if the user is enabled/disabled etc...
> > Also we need to understand how to deal with migrating password auth when
> > OTP is enabeld.
> > TBH I think we should not have a separate OTP-auth plugin but we should
> > probably have a single plugin that handles authentication and the 2
> > should be merged. Keeping them separate is going to cause more harm than
> > good with unexpected interactions.
> > We could still have 2 plugins and simply move the prebind action
> > currently don in ipa-pwd-extop to the otp plugin by making some more
> > code common. But it is probably easier to just merge OTP into
> > ipa-pwd-extop right now than try to do a huge refactoring. We can always
> > refactor the ipa-pwd-extop plugin later.
> +1. Can we do this after 3.2? This is an experimental feature after
You must assure ipa-pwd-extop is always invoked in all bind cases. I am
not welded on how you do it.
However *merging* plugins later will be messy as you have to deal with
configuration changes as the plugin .so will disappear, so I would
rather do it now.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
Freeipa-devel mailing list